Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


[There is rockets.] vs [There are rockets.]
April 29, 2008 8:34 PM   Subscribe

GrammarFilter: True/False -- The following sentence can be grammatically correct. There's rockets.

A friendly argument ensued after repeatedly remarking, "There's rockets," whilst playing Halo 3, referring to the rocket launcher containing rockets lying on the ground for someone to retrieve if desired. The context of the statement referred to an implied singular container of multiple rockets, as opposed to multiple bundles or specifically multiple rockets.

I, the English degree holder, am being kindheartedly informed second hand, through a bluff-caller whose father is a former English teacher, that a sentence may not possess verb disagreement for an implied singular object and may agree only with the actual available object by which to modify. It is my assertion that the verb modifies to that which specifically the speaker is referring, not according to which the hearer presumes the verb to modify.

The imperitive statement, "Go to the store," contains an implied, "(You shall) go to the store."

Likewise, "There is rockets," contains an implied, "There is (a rocket launcher containing) rockets."

As a side note, I also suggested that There refers specifically (as I, the speaker, intended it to be) to a singular location containing said rockets. It might be restated to report that, "That location contains rockets," whereas the verb still does not agree with rockets, as rockets is not the intended object.
posted by Quarter Pincher to Writing & Language (53 answers total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
Gosh, I don't think so. Grammatical rules typically operate in relation to the actual expression, or perhaps in relation to what both speaker and listener assume. Sometimes the speaker's intention can dictate whether someone is grammatical. If you say, "There's rockets," and you mean Tomoyo [Rockets] Shibata, who has taken to referring to herself in the lower case all ee cummings style, you would be in the clear. I doubt, though, that it can go this far. Presumably anyone who errs grammatically has a sort of private meaning. When I say, "I are home," I might mean "I in the sense of myself that is sufficiently plural so as to sustain the grammar of this sentence."
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 8:52 PM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


Two possibilities come to mind for why one would say this:
1. Jokingly adopting a dialect (eg redneck) that does verb agreement differently than standard English.

2. Jokingly treating rockets as a mass noun.
I.e. treating "rockets" as a mass noun like "sugar", "poison gas", "ammo", etc, as opposed to a count noun like "dogs", "cats", "rockets".

With a count noun you could say "how many ___ are there?" For these, the verb agreement is: "there is one [singular]", "there are two [plural]"

With a mass noun, it doesn't make sense to say "how many __ are there?", but instead "how much ___ is there?" For these, the verb agreement goes: "There is some [mass noun]"

So for example....
We need sugar to complete the mission!
Look, there's sugar! [in that box marked 'sugar']

We need weapons to complete the mission!
Look, there's poison gas! [in that vial marked 'poison gas']
Look, there's ammo!
Look, there's rockets! [in that box marked 'rockets']
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:54 PM on April 29, 2008


False.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:55 PM on April 29, 2008


(although it depends if you're a prescriptivist or a descriptivist)
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:56 PM on April 29, 2008


Sure it can.

"Can you think of any plural nouns?"

"There's rockets."
posted by Flunkie at 8:56 PM on April 29, 2008 [11 favorites]


"Isn't there anything at all that makes you happy?" "There's rockets."
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:56 PM on April 29, 2008


...mass nouns are usually used for substances (gold, paste, etc), rather than items that can be parceled out one at a time (pencils, cars, etc). So the joke would be treating rockets as a substance. (If this were the joke one might also say "there's some rocket".)
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:57 PM on April 29, 2008


I think this represents the abuse/promotion of "rockets" into a mass noun, like "water" or "ice cream".

[on preview... what LobsterMitten said]
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 9:02 PM on April 29, 2008


If "Rockets" is the proper name of a singular thing, like a band or a team. For example, "there's Love and Rockets" would be proper, and it would be equally proper if Daniel Ash and Kevin Haskins kicked David J out of the band and changed the name to just "Rockets." Then you could say that, on the one hand, there's Love and Rockets, and on the other hand there's Rockets, and they are two different bands.
posted by The World Famous at 9:07 PM on April 29, 2008 [2 favorites]


I really like the suggestions by Flunkie and Mr. President whatever, which are even more practical than Rockets Shibata. Out of curiosity, though, what renders them grammatical? Perhaps the questioner's reference to "any" or "anything" somehow redeems them. If the exchange were like this, it would sound strange:

"Name things that make you happy." "There is rockets."

But I tend to think that only the first is correct, and even then only because Flunkie's example would properly have internal quotes ("There's 'rockets'.").
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 9:12 PM on April 29, 2008


"How do we get the damn space ship off the ground?"
"How about a nuclear reactor."
"Nah, too risky."
"What about 1000 hamsters in 1000 wheels?"
"Nah, too cute."
"Solar panels?"
"Will burn up in the outer atmosphere. Any other bright ideas?"
"There's rockets."
posted by Afroblanco at 9:19 PM on April 29, 2008


People commonly use "there is" when the subject is plural. It's common, but incorrect. If you follow the rules of English grammar, laid out in a'plenty a text book for several centuries now, you always use "There are" to describe multiple items.

UbuRoivas's comment about prescriptivism v. descriptivism was meant to get to the heart of this issue: is something grammatically correct only if it is deemed so by text book, or is something grammatically correct if it is used commonly by native speakers? If one is a descriptivist about grammar, then it is possible that the rules of "there is" are far more lax than what we're taught in grammar lessons.

...Of course, your question is at heart one about the rules of grammar that have been set in place, so it won't really help you to start spouting descriptivist defenses.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:22 PM on April 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


Out of curiosity, though, what renders them grammatical?
In the context that I used it, "rockets" is singular, being merely a (single) example of something from the category "word".
posted by Flunkie at 9:23 PM on April 29, 2008


Except that should be "There are rockets", Afroblanco. Same as in Steve's example.
posted by Justinian at 9:24 PM on April 29, 2008


"Can you think of any plural nouns?" "There's rockets."

"Isn't there anything at all that makes you happy?" "There's rockets."


Well that's interesting, isn't it - these do sound "right", in spite of the elision of the singular reflexive object from the phrase as understood - "There's [the word] 'rockets'", "There's [the sight, concept, or existence of] rockets" - but "There's [a box of] rockets" sounds wrong. I think this is because "there" is a dummy referent for the object in the first two sentences and an adverb modifying "is" in the third - but IANALinguist.
posted by nicwolff at 9:25 PM on April 29, 2008


i don't think one can imply the noun one expects to modify a verb. but flunkie may have it, as this formulation doesn't require all that implying business. i think mr. president's would be more proper if it said "there are rockets."
posted by ncc1701d at 9:26 PM on April 29, 2008


I'm not convinced by my example, but I constructed it around the idea that "rockets" could refer to rockets in general, and the idea of rockets in the abstract is a lot easier to construe as singular. For example, "if there's is one single thing in the world I hate, it's rockets."

The limitation that the sentence be "there's rockets" made it hard, though.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:26 PM on April 29, 2008


"There's rockets" is certainly considered acceptable colloquial English by at least some reputable authorities. (Language Log - near the top which I admit is as far as I read) I recall another discussion, probably also on the Log, of this or a similar issue and the author seemed to be reasonably certain that "There's " is the speaker's way of contracting "there are" while avoiding the akward "there're." My completely uneducated intuition prefers that explanation to yours. Did your friend claim to clearly recall specifically thinking of a singular container of multiple rockets or are you trying to rationalize it after the fact?

Actually, the more I think about I'm pretty sure it was Language Log but it was a different contraction. I'd be grateful to whoever can track it down.

posted by stuart_s at 9:28 PM on April 29, 2008


i think the answer is more basic :p
traditional grammar doesn't apply to chat, blogging or casual emails - and virtual games.
the itnernet has reduced the necessity for traditional correct grammar (^-^)
to look at this from a different perspective, in the time that you have taken to think about, write, study, review and repost this question, you could have played around 4 extra hours of halo 3 \(^0^)/
or from another angle, if you had left all capitals out of your original post,
the message would not lose any impact, nor would the readers think any less of you -
but again you would be back to Halo many many milliseconds quicker.
so the internet has allowed us to accept a NEW GRAMMAR,
which means absolute speed is paramount as long as the message is generally transferred.
;)
posted by edtut at 9:31 PM on April 29, 2008


The context of the statement referred to an implied singular container of multiple rockets, as opposed to multiple bundles or specifically multiple rockets.

Two wrinkles here:

1) "There's" is not technically a contraction of "there is" in this instance. It's a "tag opener" that can be used in any number of ways. "There's five apples in the bucket," or "there's 10 miles left in the race." This is a well understood informal usage that is not technically wrong. At best you could say it's a weak construction.

2) Occasionally, a plural possessive modifier is used for something that is technically singular in nature, and because the singular nature is understood, the verb doesn't change. For example, "There is the men's room," meaning the bathroom designated to be used by men only. The possessive in this case refers to the singular set of all men everywhere, so while "men" is plural, it's understood in this context to be singular. In this construction, you could say, "This is the men's room and that one over there is the women's," which provides another example of the verb not changing.

Similarly, while we say "rockets" in the plural, it is understood that we are talking about an "implied singular container" of rockets. So the verb doesn't have to change.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:32 PM on April 29, 2008


In "There is the men's room," isn't it singular solely because of "room"? I don't buy the implication argument here.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 9:43 PM on April 29, 2008


i think mr. president (using "rockets" as "rockets in general") has redeemed himself, joining flunkie (using it as "the word 'rockets'") for the win.

cool papa may be close as well, if one considers it acceptable to just say "this is the men's" where the implied noun is "men's room." but on second thought that may be limited to that one example, wherein the assumption is easy due to social conventions, not correct grammar. on third thought, men's is just an adjective modifying the singular noun "room," rather than the noun itself as the question posits.
posted by ncc1701d at 9:50 PM on April 29, 2008


i think afroblanco got the "rockets in general" usage first, fwiw.
posted by ncc1701d at 9:56 PM on April 29, 2008


UbuRoivas: I had not previously been familiar with the terms prescritivist or descriptivist and can conclude that I am, in fact, a descriptivist. I believe that dictionaries are newspapers about how words have been used, not instruction manuals about the limitation of which words may be used, as my prescrivist friend asserts.

Ms.Saint notes, "... you always use "There are" to describe multiple items."

However, as the original post states, "There are" does not modify multiple items, but instead a singular implied object containing multiple objects -- and basis for correct or incorrect depends on that which the speaker is actually referring, not how the interpreter perceives it.

edtut: I do agree somewhat regarding the concept that governs whether or not actual transmission of the correct data is achieved as a reason to dismiss alignment with a particular grammatical philosophy, but the remark in question was made in person. ^_^

Cool Papa Bell: Without derailing this too far, I think contractions in general are simply quicker maneuvers to say two (or more) words and don't necessarily fall under the justidiction of grammar. In some cases they merely represent a regional accent in written form -- whereas that written form is the correct way to visually represent the actual sounds produced. For this reason, I assert that shouldn't've is perfectly acceptable.

The World Famous: That's exactly the concept I mean. "Next up is Rockets" contains an implied, "Next up, is (a band called) Rockets."
posted by Quarter Pincher at 10:08 PM on April 29, 2008


Quarter Pincher,

I think the "implied" gambit here is too broad. What Rockets Shibata and Love and Rockets have in common is that "Rockets" is part of their proper names, and if written in short form, amounts to the entirety of their proper names. The implication can be expressed in quote marks. You would have implication serve a much broader function; someone might say "I are smart" grammatically so long as they meant "(My friend and) I are smart." In your actual example, you say "There's rockets" means "There is (a rocket launcher containing) rockets," which broadens to "There is [something singular but I'm going to only refer to the plural thing associated with it, which is] plural." That's not the same. Perfectly cool casually, but different.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 10:26 PM on April 29, 2008


"named" is an easier example than "contains," as the nature of names is to replace their longer (more complete) noun.

e.g.: "he is david" easily implies "he is called 'david'" but "it is rockets" doesn't easily imply "it is a container of rockets."
posted by ncc1701d at 10:41 PM on April 29, 2008


*...doesn't easily imply "it is a rocket launcher containing rockets."
posted by ncc1701d at 10:42 PM on April 29, 2008


So you say you're a descriptivist but you want to know what the "correct" rules are? Your usage is nonstandard. Is there some further fact you want to know about it?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:54 PM on April 29, 2008


the author seemed to be reasonably certain that "There's " is the speaker's way of contracting "there are" while avoiding the awkward "there're."

"There're" might be more or less awkward depending on your accent. I'd personally use that construction, and it ends up being pronounced more or less like "There-a-rockets".

In some American accents, where Rs seem to be emphasised, it might end up as an awful, slurring triple-R, as opposed to my/our more distinct R-A-R sound.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:00 PM on April 29, 2008


I think that part of the difficulty with accepting "There's rockets" for me is I never talk about rockets.

But if you change it up and make me leave a note to the person feeding my cats while I'm away, I'd write "There's brownies in the fridge, help yourself." I know instinctively that "There is brownies in the fridge, help yourself" is not grammatical, and that "There are brownies in the fridge, help yourself" is grammatical, but I'd never use either one.

So yeah, "There's rockets."
posted by 23skidoo at 11:42 PM on April 29, 2008


I vote that "rockets" is a mass noun in this context. It's conversational English and I'm sure there's examples of it everywhere you look.
posted by dhartung at 11:48 PM on April 29, 2008


I think you're over-thinking this. The rockets in question are notable not because they are in a rocket launcher containing rockets, but because they are a power-up in a game. "What's that power-up?" "It's rockets." Power-ups are singular by nature; they are discrete packets of help, not fluid or variable in number. They are one and always one (unless there are many, duh). The implied statement is "There's [a power-up of] rockets."

It's like easter-egg hunting and finding a plastic egg. "This [one] is jelly beans!"
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:31 AM on April 30, 2008


yes, what if we substituted another term - eg instead of "rockets" we used "beans"?
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:43 AM on April 30, 2008


False.

You can discuss this as much as you like, but you're still going to have to eat humble pie I'm afraid.
posted by DrtyBlvd at 12:47 AM on April 30, 2008


There's rockets isn't allowed as grammatical in my variety of English.
posted by Stewriffic at 4:16 AM on April 30, 2008


The imperitive statement, "Go to the store," contains an implied, "(You shall) go to the store."

Likewise, "There is rockets," contains an implied, "There is (a rocket launcher containing) rockets."


You can't just throw in implied words wherever you want to make a sentence grammatical. Imperatives are a special case, and there are a few other special cases too. If you could, every sentence could be grammatical. "Cat dog purple angrily" becomes "(The) cat (watched the) dog (eat) purple (grapes) angrily." "There's rockets" is nonstandard in formal English (i.e., what prescriptivists would call "incorrect").
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:00 AM on April 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


People commonly use "there is" when the subject is plural. It's common, but incorrect colloquial.

It's perfectly normal in (American) colloquial speech to use "there is" with a plural: "There's weeds galore in our lawn!" "There's too damn many prima donnas in baseball!" As is often the case with colloquial usage, it does not follow the rules of "official" grammar and thus is "incorrect" if you're playing that game. Attempts to make it correct by some tortured "implication" are silly.
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on April 30, 2008


It's perfectly normal in (American) colloquial speech to use "there is" with a plural

I know it's common, and I never give anyone else trouble over using it, but I always cringe inwardly when I hear this construction slipping from my mouth.
posted by owtytrof at 7:49 AM on April 30, 2008


Cool Papa Bell: "There's" is not technically a contraction of "there is" in this instance. It's a "tag opener" that can be used in any number of ways. "There's five apples in the bucket," or "there's 10 miles left in the race." This is a well understood informal usage that is not technically wrong. At best you could say it's a weak construction.

I've never heard of a grammatical "tag opener," but if you're looking to associate natural with machine language, that seems like the wrong way to do it. "There's" has always been associated with the contraction of "there is," and is so even in the mouths of people who use it with plural objects colloquially; and if you're going to be prescriptivist about it, it's certainly against the rules to use it thusly. Most western languages contain this kind of common phrase that indicates that something exists with the implication that it's present ("hay" in Spanish and "il y a" in French, for example) but "there is" and "there are" in English is only recently come into such usage, and those who tend to say such things will invariably say you're incorrect when you use "there is" with a plural object. This is only to say that there is, so far as I can tell, no prescriptivist argument by which "there is" can take a plural argument. Though I suppose your innovative new one is just as valid when making a critique of common speech.

For example, "There is the men's room," meaning the bathroom designated to be used by men only. The possessive in this case refers to the singular set of all men everywhere, so while "men" is plural, it's understood in this context to be singular.

The object of "There is the men's room" is "room," which is singular. "Men's" is acting as an adjective. Your example isn't an example of "there is" taking a plural object. Even in "There is the men's room, and there is the women's," "women's" is still acting adjectivally, as in "There is the red ball, and there is the green." Green is not a noun in that sentence.

Just sayin'.
posted by Viomeda at 8:06 AM on April 30, 2008


Viomeda: This is only to say that there is, so far as I can tell, no prescriptivist argument by which "there is" can take a plural argument.

Speaking of 'relating natural to machine language,' "argument" should be "object."

posted by Viomeda at 8:07 AM on April 30, 2008


It's perfectly normal in (American) colloquial speech to use "there is" with a plural: "There's weeds galore in our lawn!"

Another way to look at it is in terms of social situation. Since language is a social construct that's a sensible thing to do.

Context: Kicking back & playing some Halo 3 with friends in an informal situation--acceptable.

Context: Giving a formal academic paper to a group of English professors--unacceptable.

FWIW after said friends have complained about using the phrase, the context changes again. However it may make some of us more likely to say it than before, rather than less--it has a new and possibly useful meaning in that context.

From a practical perspective "There're" or even "There are" is difficult and annoying to pronounce because of the repeated 'r' sounds. That's likely one reason "there's" has become more common in many informal situations regardles of grammar.
posted by flug at 8:32 AM on April 30, 2008


Clyde Mnestra and ncc1701d retort, In your actual example, you say "There's rockets" means "There is (a rocket launcher containing) rockets," which broadens to "There is [something singular but I'm going to only refer to the plural thing associated with it, which is] plural." That's not the same," and, *...doesn't easily imply "it is a rocket launcher containing rockets."

However, given the nature of Halo 3's system of distribution on matchmaking, rockets can only be found in one container. There are never individual rockets strewn about over the ground, they are always either one inside a single rocket launcher, or multple inside a single rocket launcher. Stating that "rockets" can be found in a particular section of the map/level, implies that the launcher itself, containing rockets, can be found there. (For those who play, yes, the launcher can respawn and thereby exist two launchers at a time, but they are still contained in one launcher and never found outside of a launcher).

It's just as wemayfreeze adds, It's like easter-egg hunting and finding a plastic egg. "This [one] is jelly beans!"

I guess what my central argument is, is that a grammatical correctness must rely on the context of the sentence to discern whether an implied object is being expressed. My same accuser asserts that words, on their own, have a default definition -- with which I disagree. They have a definition with which they are most commonly associated but without context, they could be any one of many possibilities, no?
posted by Quarter Pincher at 8:32 AM on April 30, 2008


DevilsAdvocate issues forth, "There's rockets" is nonstandard in formal English (i.e., what prescriptivists would call "incorrect").

So what it seems we've established here is that it boils down to is strictly just a matter of language philosophy, and not actual correct or incorrectness. According to prescriptivism, it's out. According to descriptivism, it's perfectly acceptable.
posted by Quarter Pincher at 8:37 AM on April 30, 2008


It would makes perfect sense if "There" is a name.

John: What's in that bag?
Bob: There's rockets.
John: Really?
There: Yeah, really. My rockets are in that bag.
John: Well put them away. They could put an eye out.
posted by oddman at 8:51 AM on April 30, 2008


It might also be noted that, as someone who studies religious texts to some degree, it is of utmost importance to ascertain about what exactly the writer is trying to communicate, not what the actual words appear to mean regardless of context. For instance, if someone were to lose face over a controversy -- they would not actually find themselves suddenly (or gradually) with no facial features. We must examine, by context and history of the time, what a particular phrase meant to the writer rather than what it means today or in the context that only immediately comes to mind. Losing face tends to imply a loss of reputation in some degree, although it is not stated in such precise words. It would be practically impossible to predict what future words will no longer be understood as we understand them today.

The thread is still open to discussion, despite that I've obviously marked the best answers as the remarks I personally agree with! xD
posted by Quarter Pincher at 8:58 AM on April 30, 2008


My same accuser asserts that words, on their own, have a default definition -- with which I disagree. They have a definition with which they are most commonly associated but without context, they could be any one of many possibilities, no?

Well, in one sense words are arbitrary labels, but you can't go around claiming that words mean things that no one else is familiar with...otherwise, you're making up a private language.


yes, what if we substituted another term - eg instead of "rockets" we used "beans"?

I'd suggest arugula, but that introduces another semantic complication.
posted by kittyprecious at 9:18 AM on April 30, 2008


According to descriptivism, it's perfectly acceptable.

Depends what you mean by "acceptable." If you mean "considered acceptable by some groups in some situations," then yes. If you mean "objectively acceptable," then no, because descriptivism doesn't say what language is "acceptable" and what isn't. It describes how language is and makes no judgments, either positive or negative, on what language should be.

The descriptivist's answer to "is it correct to say 'There's rockets?'" is not "yes, because that's how people talk." It's "that's how people talk. I don't think it's meaningful or useful to try to decide whether it's 'correct' or not."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:45 AM on April 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Couldn't rockets be the name? Even lowercase? Where's the dog [named rockets]? There's rockets! (lowercase r because you can make your name whatever you want it to be. My last name might be Black and if I say it's white, it's white.)
posted by TomMelee at 10:29 AM on April 30, 2008


The imperitive statement, "Go to the store," contains an implied, "(You shall) go to the store."

No. When you say "go to the store" to someone, you're not thinking "you shall" at all.

This thread is great proof that whether or not you teach English or have a degree in it is generally not correlated to your knowledge of grammar. (Unless you're a high-school English teacher, in which case there's negative correlation.)
posted by oaf at 11:18 AM on April 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


And to answer the question in the first sentence of the thread: true for a significant number of native speakers of English, but it's not something I would say (I'd say "there're rockets" and it would end up sounding like "therrrrrrrrockets.")
posted by oaf at 11:20 AM on April 30, 2008


This thread is also proof that similar points will be made repeatedly w/o reading upthread. I think the "proper noun" redemption of "there's 'rockets'" has been pretty much beaten to death, and the imperative statement, implied statement, implied mass noun, etc. have been pretty resoundingly routed.

Quarter Pincher, from your remarks, it looks like you are trying to come up with rationalizations for the usage, and I suppose you have -- to your satisfaction. As to your last post, one slight quarrel, and from one who hasn't thought through the merits or demerits of what is being called descriptivism here (though it seems, as others have pointed out, to be a "descriptivist and having my rule-oriented cake too" view). You stress the significance of understanding what the writer means. I would guess that one of the functions of grammatical rules is to help clarify meaning by establishing predictability -- to assist writers/speakers in communicating what they mean without undue need to explicate or without unnecessary lingering doubt. Anyway, it would be insanely easy for you to communicate what you meant about the rockets by using the plural, so it's hard to see how anything about this adverse result under grammatical principles works a hardship. As others have said, though, you are probably on perfectly adequate ground as a colloquialism.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 12:28 PM on April 30, 2008


Apologies if this has already been posted and I missed it. This has some more info about using "there's."
posted by mosessis at 12:52 PM on April 30, 2008


I'd jump on the "colloquial" bandwagon, and the awkward string of Rs in "there're." I figure it's along the same lines as saying "i'n'it" or "ain't it" instead of "isn't it". Over the course of the English evolutionary timeline, people eventually decided it's just easier to say in everyday speech, and it still gets your point across. But you wouldn't use it in your dissertation or anything.

Trying to justify the grammatical correctness of the original example, in its original context, just kind of (or kinda) seems like grasping for straws.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:52 PM on April 30, 2008


« Older YouTube videos stuck on the lo...   |  How can I prepare a bitmap ima... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.